Terry Cross wrote: > On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >>>> Suzanne wrote: >>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real >>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. >>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >>>>> being a real person. >>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed >>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! >>>> T. >>> I am completely serious. >>> Suzanne >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.
> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
> TCross
Gee Terry, Suzanne doesn't need to tell us. As you are her staunch defender, why don't you tell us about the fruit. I'll be waiting.
Suzanne wrote: > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: >> Suzanne wrote: >>> God would not teach with a lie. >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies >>> as being a real person. >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I >> believed the poster to be serious. Cute! > I am completely serious.
If you were raised with another religion, say, I don't know, the old Norse pantheon or something. Would you have believed in those gods with the same fervour?
On Oct 29, 12:12 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <56c31e3a-d9fa-4234-9055-4988e0dca...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > <rja.carne...@excite.com> said:
> > Maybe it would be helpful to be more specific.
> > How about the different genealogies in the bible, which give > > Joseph - the father of Jesus - two different fathers.
> > People have made excuses for this. What's yours?
> Are you talking to me? If so, you misinterpret me. With the > possible exception of some general historical references, I don't > view the contents of the Old Testament as accurate representations > of reality.
Then why should the OT be in existence and being the "words" of god?
> On Oct 27, 9:27 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5026d6d4-6871-4e52-b201- > > d98c54276...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> > > On Oct 19, 5:59 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote: > > >> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly... > > >> > Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7). > > >> > What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day > > >> > 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made > > >> > the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The > > >> > trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, > > >> > to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of > > >> > the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE > > >> > GARDEN.
> > >> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by > > >> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of > > >> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
> > > He was not weaseling.
> > > The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > > > allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > > > trees in the Garden of Eden were real > > > trees. God would not teach with a lie. > > > If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > > > Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > > > being a real person.
> > >> If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he > > >> would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the > > >> creation stories.
> > > Your lack of understanding the harmony of the creation does not make > > > it suddenly be not so, though. > > > Pastor Dave told you the truth when he said that Gen. 2 is a > > > continuation of Gen. 1. Chapter 5 proves it. > > > Compare these: > > > Genesis 1:26-27: > > > 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and > > > let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of > > > the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every > > > creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. > > > 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he > > > him; male and female created he them.
> > So God created man and woman at the same time.
> > Doesn't that contradict the following?
> > Eve created alone.
> > Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made > > he a woman, and brought her unto the man.- Hide quoted text -
> They were created on the same day, but they were > not created simultaneously. : ) > Gen. 5:1-2
Where did other human came from? There were blacks and yellows as well.
In article <56dbf788-8fcc-4cee-aa7c-2337bc1d8...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> said:
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> With the possible exception of some general historical >> references, I don't view the contents of the Old Testament as >> accurate representations of reality.
> Then why should the OT be in existence and being the "words" of > god?
>On Oct 30, 12:09 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 27, 9:27 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5026d6d4-6871-4e52-b201- >> > d98c54276...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> > > On Oct 19, 5:59 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote: >> > >> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly... >> > >> > Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7). >> > >> > What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day >> > >> > 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made >> > >> > the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The >> > >> > trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, >> > >> > to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of >> > >> > the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE >> > >> > GARDEN.
>> > >> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by >> > >> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of >> > >> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>> > > He was not weaseling.
>> > > The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an >> > > allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the >> > > trees in the Garden of Eden were real >> > > trees. God would not teach with a lie. >> > > If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. >> > > Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as >> > > being a real person.
>> > >> If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he >> > >> would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the >> > >> creation stories.
>> > > Your lack of understanding the harmony of the creation does not make >> > > it suddenly be not so, though. >> > > Pastor Dave told you the truth when he said that Gen. 2 is a >> > > continuation of Gen. 1. Chapter 5 proves it. >> > > Compare these: >> > > Genesis 1:26-27: >> > > 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and >> > > let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of >> > > the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every >> > > creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. >> > > 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he >> > > him; male and female created he them.
>> > So God created man and woman at the same time.
>> > Doesn't that contradict the following?
>> > Eve created alone.
>> > Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made >> > he a woman, and brought her unto the man.- Hide quoted text -
>> They were created on the same day, but they were >> not created simultaneously. : ) >> Gen. 5:1-2 >Where did other human came from? >There were blacks and yellows as well.
Don't you know that the 'literalist' interpretation requires that to happen after the Flood, though it's pretty clear that the storyteller had no knowledge about that.
Iain wrote: > On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Iain wrote: >>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. >>> No, we just do. >>>> But >>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? >>> No. >>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and >>> instead restore tissue to its former state.
>> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully >> understood. A great deal is currently known.
> No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging > process is not understood.
> We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the green sea turtle live hundreds of years? This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
> You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet > wound.
> What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of > rejuvenation?
> Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process is the expectation.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:47:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms >of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to >be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
If anyone wants to look that particular disorder up, it's called progeria.
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:47:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >> which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >> 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms >> of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to >> be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
> If anyone wants to look that particular disorder up, it's called > progeria. >
> This is true. Somatic cells taken from children with this condition, and cultured in glass(in vitro) aged and died long before the normal the normal Hayflick limit (about 50 cellular repeats) was reached. Are you familiar with this subject?
Dr. Thomas wrote: > Ron Dean wrote: >>> Volvox minor, is made up of >>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >>> were programed to age and die, having been used >>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >>> facilitate reproduction. >> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. >> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer >> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to >> build new volvox. >> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in >> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells >> including human, were could divide only a limited number of >> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were >> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called >> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically >> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly >> falsified.
>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a >> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. >> After several months, he reported that the cells showed >> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings >> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken >> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer >> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an >> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called >> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive >> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called >> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom >> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to >> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta >> died in 1951.
>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- >> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in >> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for >> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing >> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human >> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the >> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells >> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then >> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure >> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just >> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! >> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- >> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist >> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did >> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional >> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X >> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman >> together in the same enviroment during the same testing >> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while >> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. >> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman >> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. >> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young >> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, >> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow >> seems to acquire immortality.
>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental >> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the >> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to >> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that >> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so >> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". >> The manuscript was rejected.
>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another >> journal and it was published. This paper has since been >> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history >> of medical research.
>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate >> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA >> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about >> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning >> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells >> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By >> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds >> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick >> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, >> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, >> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young >> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This >> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A >> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. >> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, >> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called >> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of >> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the >> number of repeats.
>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the >> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, >> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end >> minus one link. >> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link >> less than the parent cell.
>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from >> mortal soma cells.
> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any further.
Ron Dean wrote: >> Volvox minor, is made up of >> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >> were programed to age and die, having been used >> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >> facilitate reproduction. > For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > build new volvox. > Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > including human, were could divide only a limited number of > times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > falsified.
> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > After several months, he reported that the cells showed > no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > died in 1951.
> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > together in the same enviroment during the same testing > procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > seems to acquire immortality.
> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > The manuscript was rejected.
> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > journal and it was published. This paper has since been > one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > of medical research.
> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > number of repeats.
> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > minus one link. > Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > less than the parent cell.
> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > mortal soma cells.
In article <4AF27502.3010...@gmail.com>, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> writes: >Iain wrote: >> No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging >> process is not understood.
>We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. >Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the >green sea turtle live hundreds of years? >This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >10 years old.
ObSFW: "Hostess" by Isaac Asimov
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder". It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
<rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dr. Thomas wrote: > > Ron Dean wrote: > >>> Volvox minor, is made up of > >>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of > >>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells > >>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the > >>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells > >>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which > >>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells > >>> were programed to age and die, having been used > >>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to > >>> facilitate reproduction. > >> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > >> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > >> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > >> build new volvox. > >> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > >> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > >> including human, were could divide only a limited number of > >> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > >> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > >> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > >> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > >> falsified.
> >> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > >> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > >> After several months, he reported that the cells showed > >> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > >> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > >> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > >> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > >> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > >> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > >> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > >> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > >> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > >> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > >> died in 1951.
> >> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > >> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > >> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > >> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > >> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > >> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > >> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > >> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > >> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > >> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > >> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > >> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > >> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> >> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > >> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > >> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > >> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > >> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > >> together in the same enviroment during the same testing > >> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > >> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > >> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > >> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > >> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > >> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > >> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > >> seems to acquire immortality.
> >> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > >> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > >> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > >> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > >> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > >> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > >> The manuscript was rejected.
> >> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > >> journal and it was published. This paper has since been > >> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > >> of medical research.
> >> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > >> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > >> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > >> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > >> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > >> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > >> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > >> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > >> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> >> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > >> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > >> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > >> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > >> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > >> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > >> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > >> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > >> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > >> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > >> number of repeats.
> >> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > >> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > >> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > >> minus one link. > >> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > >> less than the parent cell.
> >> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > >> mortal soma cells.
> > SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any > further.
I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:37:34 -0500, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:47:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >>> which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >>> 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms >>> of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to >>> be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
>> If anyone wants to look that particular disorder up, it's called >> progeria. >
>This is true. Somatic cells taken from children with this condition, >and cultured in glass(in vitro) aged and died long before the >normal the normal Hayflick limit (about 50 cellular repeats) was >reached. Are you familiar with this subject?
John Wilkins wrote: > In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Thomas wrote: >>> Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of >>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used >>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >>>>> facilitate reproduction. >>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. >>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer >>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to >>>> build new volvox. >>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in >>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells >>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of >>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were >>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called >>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically >>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly >>>> falsified.
>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a >>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. >>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed >>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings >>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken >>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer >>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an >>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called >>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive >>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called >>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom >>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to >>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta >>>> died in 1951.
>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- >>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in >>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for >>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing >>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human >>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the >>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells >>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then >>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure >>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just >>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! >>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- >>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist >>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did >>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional >>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X >>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman >>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing >>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while >>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. >>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman >>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. >>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young >>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, >>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow >>>> seems to acquire immortality.
>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental >>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the >>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to >>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that >>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so >>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". >>>> The manuscript was rejected.
>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another >>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been >>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history >>>> of medical research.
>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate >>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA >>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about >>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning >>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells >>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By >>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds >>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick >>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, >>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, >>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young >>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This >>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A >>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. >>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, >>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called >>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of >>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the >>>> number of repeats.
>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the >>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, >>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end >>>> minus one link. >>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link >>>> less than the parent cell.
>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from >>>> mortal soma cells.
>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any >> further.
> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any comments?
<rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Wilkins wrote: > > In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean > > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dr. Thomas wrote: > >>> Ron Dean wrote: > >>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of > >>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of > >>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells > >>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the > >>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells > >>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which > >>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells > >>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used > >>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to > >>>>> facilitate reproduction. > >>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > >>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > >>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > >>>> build new volvox. > >>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > >>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > >>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of > >>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > >>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > >>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > >>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > >>>> falsified.
> >>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > >>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > >>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed > >>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > >>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > >>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > >>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > >>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > >>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > >>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > >>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > >>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > >>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > >>>> died in 1951.
> >>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > >>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > >>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > >>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > >>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > >>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > >>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > >>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > >>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > >>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > >>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > >>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > >>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> >>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > >>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > >>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > >>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > >>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > >>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing > >>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > >>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > >>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > >>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > >>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > >>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > >>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > >>>> seems to acquire immortality.
> >>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > >>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > >>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > >>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > >>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > >>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > >>>> The manuscript was rejected.
> >>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > >>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been > >>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > >>>> of medical research.
> >>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > >>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > >>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > >>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > >>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > >>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > >>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > >>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > >>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> >>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > >>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > >>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > >>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > >>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > >>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > >>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > >>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > >>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > >>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > >>>> number of repeats.
> >>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > >>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > >>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > >>>> minus one link. > >>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > >>>> less than the parent cell.
> >>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > >>>> mortal soma cells.
> >>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> >> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any > >> further.
> > I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had > completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it > was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. > Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any > comments?
None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
John Wilkins wrote: > In article <z8KIm.6971$Xf2.5...@newsfe12.iad>, Ron Dean > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote: >>> In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean >>> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dr. Thomas wrote: >>>>> Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of >>>>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >>>>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >>>>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >>>>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >>>>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >>>>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >>>>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used >>>>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >>>>>>> facilitate reproduction. >>>>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. >>>>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer >>>>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to >>>>>> build new volvox. >>>>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in >>>>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells >>>>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of >>>>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were >>>>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called >>>>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically >>>>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly >>>>>> falsified.
>>>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a >>>>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. >>>>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed >>>>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings >>>>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken >>>>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer >>>>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an >>>>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called >>>>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive >>>>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called >>>>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom >>>>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to >>>>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta >>>>>> died in 1951.
>>>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- >>>>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in >>>>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for >>>>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing >>>>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human >>>>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the >>>>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells >>>>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then >>>>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure >>>>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just >>>>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! >>>>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- >>>>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
>>>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist >>>>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did >>>>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional >>>>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X >>>>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman >>>>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing >>>>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while >>>>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. >>>>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman >>>>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. >>>>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young >>>>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, >>>>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow >>>>>> seems to acquire immortality.
>>>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental >>>>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the >>>>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to >>>>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that >>>>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so >>>>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". >>>>>> The manuscript was rejected.
>>>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another >>>>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been >>>>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history >>>>>> of medical research.
>>>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate >>>>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA >>>>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about >>>>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning >>>>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells >>>>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By >>>>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds >>>>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick >>>>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
>>>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, >>>>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, >>>>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young >>>>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This >>>>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A >>>>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. >>>>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, >>>>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called >>>>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of >>>>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the >>>>>> number of repeats.
>>>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the >>>>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, >>>>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end >>>>>> minus one link. >>>>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link >>>>>> less than the parent cell.
>>>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from >>>>>> mortal soma cells.
>>>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
>>>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any >>>> further. >>> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
>> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had >> completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it >> was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. >> Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any >> comments?
> None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the > Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular > interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
I touched on HeLa cells in part II. Here is what I know about this. > In 1951 Henrietts Lacks drove from Virginia to The John Hopkins Hospital with unsual bleeding. Here she was diagnosed with cancer. Without her knowledge a small section of her cancer was taken and given to George and Margaret Gey who had wanted to get a cancer growing in a lab. (A cancer in a test tube) In this way, they hoped, anticancer therapies and drugs could be tested before they were given to people. The 1/2 inch piece was sectioned into smaller pieces and placed it in glass bottles with a nutritional culture. Within a few days the people in Gey's lab witnessed an explosive growth in this artificial environment.
Over the next months it became evident that Dr. Gey had an immortal human cell line consisting of human cancer cells that would continue to grow indefinitely. Dr. Gey appeared on national TV with a vial of Henrietta's cells which he called HiLa cells to hide their origin. He boasted. "It is possible that, from fundamental studies such as these, we will be able to learn a way in which cancer can be completely wiped out".
These cells were destined to be sent to research cells around the world even into space on board of Discoverer XVII satellite. These cells continue to live today, almost 60 years after Henrietta died.
Normal human somatic cells are not immortal, they will repeat only about 50 times, aging during this time, then they will die even when provided with with the right nutrients and conditions. But Henrietta's cells were truly human somatic cells which became immortal once they became cancerous. Eventually, they would play a role in the quest to discover what mechanisms are involved in immortal cells and how they differed from mortal cells.
I should emphasize, again that immortal does not mean that immortal cells cannot be killed by starvation, heat poison etc. It only means they are not Programed to age and die. > I have no more time, but I will get back to this.
> Suzanne wrote: > > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >> Suzanne wrote: > >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >>> being a real person. > >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
> >> T.
> > I am completely serious. > > Suzanne
> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.- Hide quoted text -
I'm not lured by fruitcake. I think it's the citron that I don't like that is in it. However, if you think people that believe that the Bible is true are rare, think again. The Baptist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in the whole world. We are by no means at all the only people that believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it literally is true.
> On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Suzanne wrote: > > > On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > >> Suzanne wrote: > > >>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > > >>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > > >>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > > >>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > > >>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > > >>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > > >>> being a real person. > > >> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > > >> the poster to be serious. Cute!
> > >> T.
> > > I am completely serious. > > > Suzanne
> > :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.
> Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
> Terry Cross wrote: > > On Oct 30, 7:11 am, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Suzanne wrote: > >>> On Oct 27, 12:38 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > >>>> Suzanne wrote: > >>>>> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an > >>>>> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the > >>>>> trees in the Garden of Eden were real > >>>>> trees. God would not teach with a lie. > >>>>> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree. > >>>>> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as > >>>>> being a real person. > >>>> You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed > >>>> the poster to be serious. Cute! > >>>> T. > >>> I am completely serious. > >>> Suzanne > >> :-)))))). Surely you jest. What a fruitcake. Tell us more about this fruit.
> > Forgive him, Suzanne. Atheists put no store by civilized conduct.
> > TCross
> Gee Terry, Suzanne doesn't need to tell us. As you are her staunch > defender, why don't you tell us about the fruit. I'll be waiting.- Hide quoted text -
What is there to tell? It was some kind of fruit. Eve ate it, offered it to Adam. It's pretty simple. But boy does it have deep implications...
He ate it because he loved her. He was not deceived. She was, and he loved her that much. He was willing to die for her. This is a parallel to Christ, and in theology this is called a "type of Christ." He is mentioned in the New Testament as being a "type of him that is to come," meaning of Christ that loved his bride "the church" (the collective believers, not a denomination), and gave himself for her, being made sin for her to suffer in her place so that she might have hope.
|
